From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: <200003241958.OAA03128@ccure.karaya.com> Subject: Re: madvise (MADV_FREE) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 24 Mar 2000 17:08:28 GMT." <20000324170828.C3693@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 14:58:10 -0500 From: Jeff Dike Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Stephen C. Tweedie" , lk@tantalophile.demon.co.uk Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: > The i386 not-user-mode kernel I usually call that the native kernel :-) lk@tantalophile.demon.co.uk said: > certainly uses the accessed and dirty bits. What do you think > pte_young does? sct@redhat.com said: > It uses the accessed bit to perform page aging, and it uses the dirty > bit to distinguish between private and shared pages on writable > private vmas, or to mark dirty shared pages on shared vmas. I should have thought a little before making that post. When I did the user-mode port, I didn't have to provide any special support for maintaining the non-protection bits (should I be?). I essentially stole the i386 pgtable.h and pgalloc.h to get the bits and macros, and that's about it. Everything appears to work fine, so my conclusion (without delving into the i386 code too deeply) was that the upper kernel maintained them itself without any particular help from the hardware. Is this correct? Should I be dealing with the non-protection bits in the arch layer? Jeff -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/